Does Evolution Make Jesus A Liar?

[McBell]

If you mean goo to you via the zoo?

What does this even mean?

 

[McBell]

Why do you think genuine Christians reject evolution?

I do not pretend to know who is and who is not a "genuine" Christian.
I do not feel qualified to make said judgement.

If God made male and female directly in each species, that would certainly make more sense than a slow and accidental drifting into gender and reproduction by a means that is not even provable, don't you think?

So basically an argument from incredulity?

Imagine how many accidental mutations would have to happen to produce all the lifeforms on this planet....all with the ability to replicate themselves.....?

So basically an argument from incredulity?

Those who want creation and evolution to agree are somewhat stuck in the middle with no way to prove either scenario....and the ones who just believe in fortunate accidents will fudge anything to eliminate the need for an Intelligent Designer altogether.

Interesting how you completely skip over the dishonesty of creationists.

So basically you are saying that because it is easier to believe creation over evolution, creation must be the way it was?

 

[McBell]

Why bother entertaining a claim that is clearly nonsensical? Biological evolution as we know it today wasn't known at all during the alleged time of the historical Jesus. And being ignorant of something is hardly the same thing as lying.

I agree.
However, if creationists are opposed to evolution simply because they think it makes Jesus a liar....

 

[McBell]

I don't know. What did Jesus have to say about evolution?

I do not recall anything anywhere in the Bible that led me to think it was referring to evolution.

 

[McBell]

Humans always had two sexes. How how does this verse contradict evolution?

I do not know.
Thus the reason for the thread.

 

[Iymus]

Seems that AiG claims that this verse is the basis for the claim:

“But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.” (Mark 10:6)​

Who is AiG?

No. The discussion was about divorce. That we are from God and women are not the property of man that can be tossed aside like rubbish for burning the toast. It doesn't speak of how the creation took place.

Gen 2:23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

Female or XX is seen as a possession of Male XY. Depending on one's mindset that can be seen as positive such as husband,etc ; or negative such as property, etc.

 

[Quintessence]

I agree.
However, if creationists are opposed to evolution simply because they think it makes Jesus a liar....

Strange. Lying implies intentional deception. Which, depending on one's view of things, isn't necessarily a bad thing in all cases. Many would argue that intentional deception for someone's own good is acceptable.

Imagine that somehow Jesus knew about modern biological evolution and chose not to convey that to his contemporaries. Considering his contemporaries would have had little to no foundation for comprehending genetics, much less biological evolution, I mean... I would have "lied" too. But that's a poor way of putting it. Good teachers understand the importance of presenting information at the level of their audience. It isn't that they are "lying," it's that they need to lay a foundation to build upon later for a more sophisticated understanding. Teaching biological evolution is difficult in no small part because it requires a great deal of foundational knowledge in life science to make sense of.

 

[exchemist]

Humans always had two sexes. How how does this verse contradict evolution?

It doesn't.

Strange. Lying implies intentional deception. Which, depending on one's view of things, isn't necessarily a bad thing in all cases. Many would argue that intentional deception for someone's own good is acceptable.

Imagine that somehow Jesus knew about modern biological evolution and chose not to convey that to his contemporaries. Considering his contemporaries would have had little to no foundation for comprehending genetics, much less biological evolution, I mean... I would have "lied" too. But that's a poor way of putting it. Good teachers understand the importance of presenting information at the level of their audience. It isn't that they are "lying," it's that they need to lay a foundation to build upon later for a more sophisticated understanding. Teaching biological evolution is difficult in no small part because it requires a great deal of foundational knowledge in life science to make sense of.

I think the point is that if Jesus is the Son of God, as claimed in Christianity, he will have known how it happens.

But in my view, if this is true, he would still have needed to speak in terms comprehensible to his contemporary audience.

 

[Jainarayan]

Seems that AiG claims that this verse is the basis for the claim:

“But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.” (Mark 10:6)​

Jesus spoke in metaphors and parables because his audience were simple rural villagers without education, who probably could not even write their own names... why should they? They couldn't understand concepts they couldn't relate to their daily lives. So he drew on even older metaphors and allegories from scripture, created for the people of those earlier times, who were even less sophisticated. As sophisticated as nomadic goatherds and shepherds could be.

To me, the idea of the entire universe, a turn-key universe, being created in six days is so preposterous there's no word for how preposterous it is. It's a metaphor as far as I'm concerned, and no one will ever convince me otherwise. Unless Lord Vishnu himself comes to me and says "cut the crap, you know I can do it".

Anyway... astronomers and astrophysicists have been watching single stars take years to begin forming... much less one day. So... the biblical six days must be a metaphor for billions of years. Hell, even those Godless idol worshiping Hindoos calculated the age of the Earth in the billions of years, and the universe even older.

Evolution doesn't have to be the odds of a "tornado though a junkyard assembling a 747", as anti-evolutionists, IDers, creationists claim. If we accept the very sensible idea that it took God billions of years to create everything, there's no reason to discount that evolution is his process of creation. Why did some animals go extinct in this scenario? Because he decided that they were not his best work and said "I ain't puttin' my name on this ****!"

BOOYAH! compatibility between theory of evolution and religion.

 

[McBell]

Who is AiG?

Answers in Genesis

 

[BilliardsBall]

This claim has been made and I would like to hear from those who know more about it than me.

1. Your OP assumes either evolution is true or that God didn't do evolution (theistic evolution).

2. The Bible seems to speak against macro-evolution, for which the data is in flux and controversial. Even on RF, skeptics admit clades are "done" and "complete" and that cats can never be dogs nor vice versa, which aligns with the Bible's statement of "kinds".

 

[halbhh]

This claim has been made and I would like to hear from those who know more about it than me.

Does water -- H2O -- make hydrogen a liar? No

 

[Katzpur]

I do not recall anything anywhere in the Bible that led me to think it was referring to evolution.

So are we talking about something Jesus said, or something in Genesis?

 

[Deeje]

I do not pretend to know who is and who is not a "genuine" Christian.
I do not feel qualified to make said judgement.

After 47 years of intense Bible study I believe I do know the difference.....you can't tell a counterfeit by examining all counterfeits....you just have to know what the real one looks like, and then it shows up all the fakes.

So basically an argument from incredulity?

Evolution itself is an argument from incredulity IMO. Its not like they can prove that it ever took place.
Adaptation is what is seen in nature, which is the ability to adapt to a change in environment or food source. No adaptation ever witnessed by science stepped outside of its taxonomy. IOW...like Darwin's finches, iguanas and tortoises, they were still clearly recognizable as varieties of their mainland cousins. The flies in the lab were still flies...the fish were still fish, and the bacteria was still bacteria. Adaptation produced a new variety of the same species. It is a programmed response by the Creator to ensure survival. It is brilliantly designed.

So basically an argument from incredulity?

As above...which makes more logical sense when you have two competing belief systems, but only one admits that they base their beliefs on faith? Since there is no actual proof that a slow process of evolution, where a single-celled organism (that just happened to pop into existence for no apparent reason,) morphed itself (by unknown processes over countless millions of years) into dinosaurs that roamed the earth at one time. You tell me if you think that an amoeba can become a dinosaur...? Then please show me the scientific proof that it is even possible?

Interesting how you completely skip over the dishonesty of creationists.

Since all 'creationists' do not believe the same things, please tell us about this dishonesty and I will show you the extent of dishonesty of evolutionary science.

It is my belief that both evolution and YEC have both got it wrong.....there is a very reasonable middle ground that allows both science and the Bible to be right. Neither promote macro- evolution.

So basically you are saying that because it is easier to believe creation over evolution, creation must be the way it was?

Well, if evolutionists can use that concept with no concrete evidence that their scenario is even possible, (let alone actually took place,) then you have IMO, the choice between two belief systems. Neither can produce proof for their claims. Its a matter of faith in both camps. Take your pick based on the level of your spirituality....strong....weak....or non existent.

 

[McBell]

So are we talking about something Jesus said, or something in Genesis?

AiG claims that if evolution is true then Jesus lied in Mark 10:6

 

[McBell]

After 47 years of intense Bible study I believe I do know the difference.....you can't tell a counterfeit by examining all counterfeits....you just have to know what the real one looks like, and then it shows up all the fakes.



Evolution itself is an argument from incredulity IMO. Its not like they can prove that it ever took place.
Adaptation is what is seen in nature, which is the ability to adapt to a change in environment or food source. No adaptation ever witnessed by science stepped outside of its taxonomy. IOW...like Darwin's finches, iguanas and tortoises, they were still clearly recognizable as varieties of their mainland cousins. The flies in the lab were still flies...the fish were still fish, and the bacteria was still bacteria. Adaptation produced a new variety of the same species. It is a programmed response by the Creator to ensure survival. It is brilliantly designed.



As above...which makes more logical sense when you have two competing belief systems, but only one admits that they base their beliefs on faith? Since there is no actual proof that a slow process of evolution, where a single-celled organism (that just happened to pop into existence for no apparent reason,) morphed itself (by unknown processes over countless millions of years) into dinosaurs that roamed the earth at one time. You tell me if you think that an amoeba can become a dinosaur...? Then please show me the scientific proof that it is even possible?



Since all 'creationists' do not believe the same things, please tell us about this dishonesty and I will show you the extent of dishonesty of evolutionary science.

It is my belief that both evolution and YEC have both got it wrong.....there is a very reasonable middle ground that allows both science and the Bible to be right. Neither promote macro- evolution.



Well, if evolutionists can use that concept with no concrete evidence that their scenario is even possible, (let alone actually took place,) then you have IMO, the choice between two belief systems. Neither can produce proof for their claims. Its a matter of faith in both camps. Take your pick based on the level of your spirituality....strong....weak....or non existent.

And what does all of this have to do with evolution making Jesus a liar?

 

[Katzpur]

AiG claims that if evolution is true then Jesus lied in Mark 10:6

I'm sorry, but I'm lost. Who or what is AiG for starters?

 

[McBell]

I'm sorry, but I'm lost. Who or what is AiG for starters?

Answers in Genesis.org

However, that is not where it was brought to my attention.
that is, however, the root of all the references I have found to it.

 

[SaintUriah]

Seems that AiG claims that this verse is the basis for the claim:

“But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.” (Mark 10:6)​

For that You can clone the monkeys but you cant clone human!

 

[dfnj]

This claim has been made and I would like to hear from those who know more about it than me.

Evolution has nothing to with religion. Evolution is a theory that fits a set of data points of scientific evidence. It is a story created by scientists to best fit the facts as they know them.

God is not bounded by the laws of physics. God is omnipotent. Omnipotent means without limitations. So God is not limited by anything physical or imaginary. So if you have faith the existence of an omnipotent God then you must accept the idea that our omnipotent God is fully capable of creating the Universe in any amount of time including all the fake fossil and carbon dating evidence.

My the problem with the OP is there is a hidden assumption scientific evidence trumps faith. I don't think it does.

What really amazes me is how weak many theists faith must be if they think ToE is somehow a threat to their own belief system. If it's a threat then how confident can one be?